• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

584 Excellent


About ARS

  • Rank
    AI of Orbital WMD Satellite

Profile Information

  • Location High Orbit
  • Interests Missiles, Rockets, Space Techs, Anything related about Space Explorations, oh, and also Artificial Intelligence

Recent Profile Visitors

5145 profile views
  1. Supercarrier help

    Read this analysis about the viability of whether having a fighter making sense or not (depending on several factors) It has a good amount of reasons of when having fighters is justified and when having fighters is not making sense
  2. Going back in time to tell Baron Kelvin about aerodynamic and prove to him that heavier-than-air flight is possible and practical
  3. Supercarrier help

    Instead of being a carrier, the space equivalent would be like a battlestar type, aka a hybrid between battleship and carrier. Aerodynamic does not work in space, so hangar and runway becomes useless. During World War II, the honored tradition of building more and more powerful gun-toting battleships came to an abrupt halt when naval artillery became largely supplanted by carriers. It had none of the battleship's armament and durability, but it could project force hundreds of kilometers away, without ever endangering the ship itself — which made most WWII aerial/naval battles decidedly one-sided. Modern warfare may eventually subvert this trend. Currently, major warships that aren't carriers or amphibious assault ships are missile ships, each capable of launching a relative missile massacre, macross-style. As missile technology and remote piloting advance, the aircraft launched by the carrier may become unmanned guided munitions, blurring the line between missiles and attack craft. However, warfare largely dominated by purely automated systems can take away from importance of human characters in a war story. Thus, authors are likely to explain that missile combat didn't take place for various reasons, such as abundance of electronic countermeasures to disrupt missile guidance, point defenses, or electronic warfare potentially compromising the effectiveness of remotely piloted (or automated) craft. Instead, the flagship of the future (IN SPACE) becomes something that encompasses both artillery and piloting tropes: a hybrid carrier/battleship It has the heavy armor and big guns of a battleship, along with the fighters and point defense weapons of a carrier. This makes perfect sense, assuming having fighter mmakes sense, this is because the extremely thin atmosphere and the huge amount of free space means that the range of weapons are enormous, and the lack of gravity means you don't have to waste the entire top on runways and the entire bottom on being underwater. As a general rule, the Battlestar is portrayed in sci-fi media in one of three ways: Type 1: Battleship carrying fighters. This is essentially a capital ship with the primary offensive options being its own big guns, with the fighters to serve as interceptors against incoming enemy strikes or to provide utility and ability for surgical strikes when main cannons are too blunt of an instrument. Example: space battleship yamato Type 2: Carrier with extra guns and armor. This ship essentially behaves like a real life aircraft carrier, in that the primary offensive option is its embarked fighter wing, and the guns and armor lean more towards self defense options. Example: battlestar galactica Type 3: The ship is not a war vessel per se; rather, it is an exploration or colony craft, armed out of neccessity to have the widest array of available options. Its guns and air wing may very well have applications outside of combat, such as exploration, landing and dealing with the occasional space anomalies. Example: The Sidonia In real life wet navies, it does not work. Battleships and carriers require very different paradigms; the former are built for taking and dealing out heavy damage, which demands certain armor and armament characteristics, such as compartmentalization to minimize damage spread but also cut into holding space. Fighter landing strips, hangars and the stores for their fuel and munitions would detract from this role, leaving you with a jack of all trade/master of none that cannot fight or tank as well as a pure combatant or service as many fighters as a pure carrier. This didn't stop some attempts from being made. When initially launched in the late 1920s, the USS Lexington and Saratoga had a complement of cruiser-class 8-inch guns. Japan put similar 8-inch guns in casemates on the sides of Akagi andKaga. The reasoning behind the guns was so they could defend themselves if ambushed at night or in bad weather when planes couldn't fly, but they proved to be generally useless - the necessary high speed of carriers was a better defense. Japan also created hybrid Battleship/seaplane carriers out of a couple of old battleships, Ise and Hyuga in the wake of losses at the Battle of Midway. The naysayers turned out to be right: Ise and Hyuga were total failures, and the large guns on the US ships interfered with flight operations if actually used, and they were removed in 1941. The 8-inch casemates were going to be removed from Kaga and Akagi after Midway, but the ships were sunk first. Other experiments never got even this far. It's worth noting that real life examples of carrier/battleship hybrid largely predate real life examples of dedicated aircraft carriers. Many early experiments in launching and recovering airplanes from warships involved cruisers and battleships, and the first aircraft carrier to launch a wartime air raid, the British HMS Furious, began life as a battlecruiser and went through various design modification where she retained some of her main battery along with a flight deck. They wouldn't settle on the flush-deck carrier design modern viewers would recognize until the postwar period. In space, however, this model is less silly than it might appear. A trio of points: First, given how planets move through space and the need for at least rudimentary slingshot orbits, trajectories are actually fairly predictable in time and space, therefore, combat is likely to be very short range, though you could send a bunch of missiles hurtling down this space "lane". Although fightercraft are less useful in a traditional role, they can bring weapons (e.g. missiles) closer, in under the target's point-defense range, and at this point in time we can't conceive of a spacecraft that could take a missile and keep fighting, but if we could take the missile out early, the most it could do could be irradiate the ship, and you can armor against that. You can actually make an argument for almost any weapon in space, though for kinetics you'd need a propellant that doesn't need outside air, and be willing to live with the fact that you're putting hyper-lethal debris somewhere, especially immediate if you're fighting in near-orbit. Thirdly, shields could help mitigate some of the carrier's vulnerabilities, especially if physical armor is useless such that pure battleships don't have superior durability after all. Furthermore, depending on the FTL system used, the carrier strike group system used in real life may not work. In real life, enemy ships have to battle through fighter screens and escorts to get to the lightly-armored carrier, with the fates of Prince of Wales, Repulse demonstrating battleship vulnerability to air attack and Yamato providing object lessons as to the impossibility of uncovered surface elements closing with carriers. However, in a universe where the FTL has a lack of no warp zone, enemy battleships could bypass screening elements to "jump" into close quarters combat and shred carriers with alpha strikes, denying your side most of its strikecraft and thus offensive power, insofar as this is a universe where fighters have useful anti-capital firepower. In such a universe, it would only make sense to armor and upgun carriers to survive these sorts of lightning strikes, thus giving rise to the battlestar concept
  4. Starter KSC-Island Challenge

    Yeah, but everyone who makes a challenge in this forum will almost always at least post their own attempt to prove that it is indeed possible (see the "is this challenge possible?"), that would encourage people to participate and give them incentive to do it because there is a proof that it's possible. Since you already said you make 4 of it, then post it
  5. Starter KSC-Island Challenge

    There's no landing gear, control surfaces or sas module at all in starting tech. Your challenge is to build a plane, yet the very first plane parts and jet engines available at least on aviation node tech. The only propulsion on starting tech is just a flea SRB, which makes the craft essentially a manned guided missile. A horizontal takeoff and landing isn't possible using starting tech since flea (and starting parts) is very fragile. Also, the only control that available in starting node is just reaction wheel on mk1 pod, which, without any way to generate power due to the lack of the parts, would be very limited. Inevitably, players will build a rocket instead of plane Also, the rules of the challenge is that the creator must post their attempt to prove that the challenge is possible (and since you said you have built 4, then post your attempt to prove that this challenge is indeed possible. I'd like to see it)
  6. I don't know, but back then when I tasted it for the first time, I love it. It is basically my equivalent of tea when it isn't available
  7. Honey, especially when mixed with lime Other than that, maybe just tea
  8. I'm already used hangar extender, but it makes me difficult when an extremely tall fairing is mated with launch vehicle since I can't clearly see the staging parts and adding parts to the rocket
  9. So... I got a massive payload that I want to send into space, it's not particularly wide, but it's extremely tall, so tall that I had a difficulty building fairing for it since VAB space is not enough for me to build the fairing. Is there any way to edit fairing height by using notepad on craft file? How to do it? And is there a limit of how long I can build it? Thanks
  10. Regarding about the structure being created like KSC facility and put to offset on the orbit altitude, it might work like a space elevator. Since yes, we cannot render the cable or large scale structure from ground level to orbit altitude, a particle effect might be worth using. This also makes me wonder, if the space elevator is indeed being built, most of the upper section would be like an orbital shipyard where ships being built in orbit and launched directly, with materials being transported by the elevator itself. It kinda like a spaceport, after all, you can only send limited amount of stuff with the elevator, but there's nothing stopping you to assemble it in orbit. Now wait a minute, I think I can make a pseudo-space elevator (aka improvising). I haven't heard about extraplanetary launch pad mod that you said before, but what I know, it allows you to build and launch rockets on another planet, mind telling me how it works? I think I'm able to find a way to make this "space elevator" possible
  11. I think that would really elevate the gameplay on a whole new level (pun intended) but I'm afraid to say that there's several problem regarding ultra-large megastructure in KSP. Since it's essentially, a space elevator is a glorified hyperedit. It might be possible to make a mod about it, but considering the limitation regarding physic simulation distance, orbital mechanic and gameplay value, there must be a way to prevent the space elevator being too OP or impractical as well as a way to overcome the limitation of game engine regarding orbital mechanics and gameplay value. First, the main problem with space elevators (Gameplay value) is that, once it's created, it renders launch pad useless since rockets becomes obsolete. A launching facility on KSC has their own advantage and disadvantage so that one of them does not overshadow each other. For example, launch pad allows you to launch rockets, but unfeasible for launching spaceplanes or atmospheric aircraft. While you might argue that we can launch rockets on runway too, without runway, there's no viable starting point for SSTOs and jet aircraft. If there's a space elevator, then no more use for launch pad, and the only usage of runway is for landing SSTO or operating atmospheric aircraft. There must be a limit of space elevator capability such as maximum tonnage, additional cost for launch or cool down period after each launch. Second (Practicality), I understand the concept of space elevator is awesome and really, I do want to see it becomes a reality. But in real life, space elevator is also vulnerable to space debris, just like space stations, and in KSP it's still in full effect. Judging from KSC location on equatorial region of kerbin, and most players usually makes equatorial orbit, it's not surprising most refueling stations, space probes, relays and debris are scattered mostly on equatorial orbit. If launching ship from KSC is like what you suggest, then there's a very high probability that the ship being hit by space object as soon as it's "materialized" (loaded) in orbit, especially if the elevator being frequently used. Third (Orbital mechanic), how the ship makes orbit? Sure, the ship is transported into outer atmosphere where the orbit takes place, but space elevator is static object, aka a structure, it does not move at all. If you load a ship on the outer atmosphere locked by launch clamps on the summit of space elevator and release it, it will fall straight down since the ship has zero velocity, it does not move at all in the first place, and thus has no orbital velocity. Personally though, for me, I'd like to use mass driver instead of space elevators since judging from engineering standpoint, it's much easier to build and maintain (and someone already make a mod about it) I don't know much about skyhook though, only a vague information about it, and I don't know exactly how it works
  12. The most realistic and stunning graphic? Your own life, since life in this world is nothing but a game of life But as for game... Crysis series
  13. Eve not so hard after all

    My problem with Tylo is that, during landing, using rocket fuel is mandatory for safe touchdown. However, fire the thruster too early and it ends not having enough to leave, or fire too late and crash to the ground. So far I've been doing 5 Eve mission (3 success, 1 failure, 1 unmanned permanent probe) but only 1 Tylo mission (Fail)